DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
It has already been explained to you.
Mutation rates is a well known concept in biology / genetics.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Really???? Prove it.
If you talk to Frances Collins the leading expert on the subject, Frances will tell you that "DNA is the Language of God".
Collins said, “angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.”
Even Hovind agrees with micro evolution.
The problem is they use bait and switch to claim micro evidence for macro evolution.
Nobody here is denying that Collins is a theist. You need to stop with these derails and actually address the fact that Collins firmly stands behind the theory of evolution as presented in mainstream science.I read the book, do you want to talk about his book? Collins says: "It is the height of science hubus to claim that science can be used to discount the great monotheistic religions of the world".
Yes, atheistic model.
Where is the hand of God in the ToE?
It's not there.
And make sure to read the whole topic, because the complexity of living nature is simply not explained by dead unconscious processes.
So either you totally underestimate or deny the complexity and interdependency within living nature as a whole and within the average living cell in particular,
or you have been blinded by popular so called science.
Maybe both.
Evolution hinges on the mutation theory
DNA repairs itself and is self correcting. This is the reason why there are no copy errors in the Bible
Collins said, “angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.”
Even Hovind agrees with micro evolution.
The problem is they use bait and switch to claim micro evidence for macro evolution.
DNA repairs itself and is self correcting. This is the reason why there are no copy errors in the Bible. Because of the mathematical precision of the Word of God the errors are detected and they can be corrected.
Neutral mutations are changes in DNA sequence that are neither beneficial nor detrimental. The point you have to prove is that all of life is based on something they call a beneficial mutation. If you can provide evidence for that then step forward and get your nobel prize. Because as it stands science does not seem to be able to differentiate between variation and mutation.*laughs* Uhhhh yeah......because cancer doesn't exist, or the 40+ mutations you have from your parents due to errors in the copying of your DNA, or chromosone 2 fusion among other things, nope not a single error in DNA.
The desperation theory that all of life is a result of so called beneficial mutation because they have no other known mechanism to work with.In your own words, what exactly is "mutation theory"?
The desperation theory that all of life is a result of so called beneficial mutation because they have no other known mechanism to work with.
The desperation theory that all of life is a result of so called beneficial mutation because they have no other known mechanism to work with.
And we are being asked to believe that billions of copies of motor proteins sprang up out of nothing to form the first zebra? And billions of similar copies sprang up out of nothing to form the first tiger? And so on for every animal? And we are to believe that all this happened on the same week about 6000 years ago, even though there is abundant evidence most creatures were around millions of years before that? Can you see how nothing in your view makes any sense from a scientific point of view?Post 3 was a little bit more than "nothing".
Now, I was going to go a bit deeper, but I tried to keep it as simple as possible. For example we could go deeper by asking, how does the microtubule know where point "A" is and where point "B" is? What tells it to construct and then deconstruct after the motor protein walks over it? Do you realize just how complicated the code to construct the signaling for that to occur must be?
Then I'm asked to believe that it came about via a process of mutations, random chance and natural selection?
Oh, thank you, thank you. I never had a nobel prize before.The point you have to prove is that all of life is based on something they call a beneficial mutation. If you can provide evidence for that then step forward and get your nobel prize.
Neutral mutations are changes in DNA sequence that are neither beneficial nor detrimental. The point you have to prove is that all of life is based on something they call a beneficial mutation. If you can provide evidence for that then step forward and get your nobel prize. Because as it stands science does not seem to be able to differentiate between variation and mutation.
I am not disputing common descent, we are talking about the mutation theory. Try to stay on the topic. I mean I understand that they use mutations as markers to prove common descent. I am disputing that mutations has anything to do with evolution as a cause, not a marker. Look at the studies on flies. All the mutations you would ever want. Yet you start of with a fly and you end up with a fly. Unless you really want to consider a fly with a leg growing out of his head a new species.Oh, thank you, thank you. I never had a nobel prize before.
Here is the evidence you requested-- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ .
Where do I go to claim my prize?
Are you aware what scientists say when they talk about common descent from a common ancestor? They mean that all living things evolved from the same initial microbe. And that, by definition, means that creatures will be evolving into different species. They are not talking about only evolution within a species.I am not disputing common descent, we are talking about the mutation theory. Try to stay on the topic. I mean I understand that they use mutations as markers to prove common descent. I am disputing that mutations has anything to do with evolution as a cause, not a marker. Look at the studies on flies. All the mutations you would ever want. Yet you start of with a fly and you end up with a fly. Unless you really want to consider a fly with a leg growing out of his head a new species.
DNA repairs itself and is self correcting. This is the reason why there are no copy errors in the Bible. Because of the mathematical precision of the Word of God the errors are detected and they can be corrected.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?